JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision under Sections 397/401, Cr.RC. against the judgment dated 19.06.97 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner by which he dismissed the appeal No. 91/93 and confirmed the judgment dated 24.8.92 passed Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner by which he had convicted the petitioner to 6 months R.l. and a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further 1 month R.l. for the offence under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PR for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction at the time of arguments and has prayed that the sentence may be reduced because the accused petitioner has under gone the mental tension for a very long period and has also suffered financially. I may state the facts as follows : 4. On 17.7.81 at about 3.00 a.m. Excise Inspector Banne Singh along with his staff led an ambush on the kaccha road which leads from Bhinasar to Barsinghpur. A jeep bearing No. RJI 1540 came there. The party of Excise Inspector gave a signal to stop. Jeep stopped and search was made. 12 plastic Jerricans having illicit liquor were found and another Jerrican of 15 Its. and another containing 10 Itrs. and the 3rd one containing 5 Itrs. of liquor were found. Samples were taken. It is alleged that petitioner was one of the occupants of the jeep. He alongwith Nahar Singh and Thana Ram was prosecuted. During the trial before Chief Judicial Magistrate his case was that he was a taxi driver and that the raiding party called him at Gangashahar road and was asked to sit in the jeep and then a false case was foisted against him. This story concocted by him was not believed and he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. During the trial prosecution had examined 4 witnesses. The learned Magistrate scaled and scanned their evidence and convicted the accused-petitioner whose case was again considered on facts by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Findings of both the courts is that the accused petitioner had committed the offence. I agree with the finding and the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in not challenging that part of the judgment. 5. Sessions Judge. Findings of both the courts is that the accused petitioner had committed the offence. I agree with the finding and the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in not challenging that part of the judgment. 5. So far as the sentence is concerned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence was committed on 16.7.81 and that the matter is being decided in 1997 and the petitioner has under gone a lot of mental tension as well as financial loss. He also submitted that the petitioner has already under went imprisonment of 47 days and this sentence is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case. He also submitted that Rajasthan Prohibition Act was repealed and is a dead law now therefore, according to him the ends justice will be met if he is sentenced to the period already undergone and his sentenced is reduced from the 6 months to 47 days. 6. On the other hand learned RR has submitted that in these circumstances the amount of fine may be increased from Rs.250/-. 7. I agree, In the facts and circumstances when the petitioner has under went a mental tension and economic loss and the Rajasthan Prohibition Act is no more in force the period of sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already under gone but the amount of fine is increased from Rs.250/- to Rs. 1.000/-. The accused petitioner in case default of payment of fine will under go sentence of one month. 8. Period of 2 months from today is granted to deposit the amount of fine. 9. The revision stands disposed of accordingly.> Petition disposed as above. *******